As someone who lived in Seattle once, I know these folks love their sports and have a population capable of supporting an NFL and MLB franchise along with a NBA team (if that team doesn't suck for a long time...) This leads me to believe they can support a NHL team, especially considering they will receive the Columbus treatment.

The Columbus treatment meaning that a bunch of fans from Detroit kept that team alive by traveling to see the team, and the Nucks will do the same. Maybe even the Sharks fans too...

"It is a lot easier to be an ******* to words than to people"-xkcd

Tootoo does NOT belong on this team. He is classless and I would rather see the Wings be bad than classless. I feel the same way about Bertuzzi as well, but he at least CAN make the team better. With Tootoo the team becomes worse and in danger of being classless. Would you have liked Claude on the team? Or Roy? No. So why would you be okay with that POS.

This thread has been closed due to emotions being higher than people's ability to read, interpret, and properly respond to simple posts.

Two new teams would fix the new Division inbalance, and would only really cost each team a single roster player. Sure you could fix problems with relocation, but you can fix others with expansion.

My vote is for expansion. Besides, you might end up moving Phoenix or Florida to Kansas City or Hamilton anyways.

"It is a lot easier to be an ******* to words than to people"-xkcd

Tootoo does NOT belong on this team. He is classless and I would rather see the Wings be bad than classless. I feel the same way about Bertuzzi as well, but he at least CAN make the team better. With Tootoo the team becomes worse and in danger of being classless. Would you have liked Claude on the team? Or Roy? No. So why would you be okay with that POS.

This thread has been closed due to emotions being higher than people's ability to read, interpret, and properly respond to simple posts.

Expansion is gross, it is part of the reason that goal scoring in the league went down. Too many teams meaning too many pluggers on each team. Back in the 80's most teams had 3 lines that could score and your 4th line was built with straight up goons. Now we have teams that can barely put 2 good scoring lines on the ice.

I agree with you that there should not be expansion, but do you honestly believe that Saskatoon can support an NHL team? Saskatoon and Regina combined don't have .5 million people (I am taking the city stats). They could likely fill an NHL arena, but the corporate support wouldn't be enough.

I agree with you that there should not be expansion, but do you honestly believe that Saskatoon can support an NHL team? Saskatoon and Regina combined don't have .5 million people (I am taking the city stats). They could likely fill an NHL arena, but the corporate support wouldn't be enough.

Saskatoon could probably do it if Winnipeg can. They are nuts about hockey and they may have more people in their drawing area then the Jets. With strong ownership it could happen.

I'm not against Seattle having a team, but with so many teams struggling expansion cannot seriously be being considered by anyone with authority. I know the corporate business mantra is "always expand" but that's why so many businesses are collapsing or struggling. The NHL can be made to work with 30 teams through relocation but I really don't think there are enough profitable markets to expand. Not to mention there are already several teams that are basically just AHL teams (Islanders, Columbus) with a few scattered NHL players, goodbye parity.

Florida to Seattle could also open up the Wings moving East, since Winnipeg would come West, creating an imbalance requiring two teams to move East, thus increasing the Wings chances.

New e-book: The Spanish-American War: A Brief History. Relatively short, introductory read for casual history buffs and people who want to learn more about a forgotten war that changed America. Available at BN.com, Smashwords, Kobo, and Diesel E-Books right now. Same link as above.

Ah...no to expansion, yes to relocation. Too many struggling teams. I really love having hockey in Arizona, but it has been a huge failure for many reasons (bad location, bad ownership, poor management, stupid team name, etc). I love the game, and it pains me to see this happening to a team, and hear about similar things in other cities. It is much better to move these struggling teams to markets where they can be successful and have a thriving fanbase.

Enough of the damned Vegas s*** already. Arguing to move a NHL team to a city that is among the worst cities in the country in an economic sense is just simply brain-dead. Not to mention that it is a non-hockey market. Please stop.

The Seattle news is interesting, especially since the Canucks' ownership has advocated for a rival team in Seattle for years now. This Hansen guy sounds a little uninterested in hockey though. I suppose it doesn't really matter if the money is right. Let's see what happens.

Expansion is gross, it is part of the reason that goal scoring in the league went down. Too many teams meaning too many pluggers on each team. Back in the 80's most teams had 3 lines that could score and your 4th line was built with straight up goons. Now we have teams that can barely put 2 good scoring lines on the ice.

Yeah, and a bunch of people like that...

"It is a lot easier to be an ******* to words than to people"-xkcd

Tootoo does NOT belong on this team. He is classless and I would rather see the Wings be bad than classless. I feel the same way about Bertuzzi as well, but he at least CAN make the team better. With Tootoo the team becomes worse and in danger of being classless. Would you have liked Claude on the team? Or Roy? No. So why would you be okay with that POS.

This thread has been closed due to emotions being higher than people's ability to read, interpret, and properly respond to simple posts.

I agree with you that there should not be expansion, but do you honestly believe that Saskatoon can support an NHL team? Saskatoon and Regina combined don't have .5 million people (I am taking the city stats). They could likely fill an NHL arena, but the corporate support wouldn't be enough.

Maybe.

Atlanta has a decent size population and look how that turned out. Some places just aren't hockey markets and the league has to realize that. You can't grow flowers in a field of s***.

I just don't know about the NHL-team-in-Seattle idea. I grew up there, and I can tell you that hockey is just not something that is in most people's frame of reference. I had no idea how awesome it was until I started dating a girl from Michigan. Ponds/lakes do not freeze there; freezing conditions cause those people to panic and abandon their cars in a flash. I remember how surprised I was when I found out the U. of Washington actually had a hockey team.

Yes, there are hockey fans there. Maybe they could support a team; maybe. Eastern Washington would definitely be more into it, but not many are going to be driving six hours from Spokane, let alone in bad weather, to see a game. I'm just saying you have to realize it's different than Michigan where kids grow up playing in the driveway.

I've lived in the Northwest a while back, and while I think Seattle could definitely support a team, my preferred city would be Portland. People in Portland are crazy about the NBA Blazers and tend to have cult following when it comes to their sports teams--the Rose Garden is considered one of the toughest buildings to play in because it's so damn loud. They're also big on the Winterhawks, which are a minor league team that you often hear people talking about. Just considering the size of the population and marketing, Seattle would probably be the safer bet, but man, Portland would be the perfect hockey city if people got into it.

Formerly known as The Nephilim.

QUOTE (Amberoonie)
Babs sure hurries himself into the presser, sits down, and f*cks up a bottle of water like no one in the room has had any for days.

Expansion is gross, it is part of the reason that goal scoring in the league went down. Too many teams meaning too many pluggers on each team. Back in the 80's most teams had 3 lines that could score and your 4th line was built with straight up goons. Now we have teams that can barely put 2 good scoring lines on the ice.

Yes to Seattle, No to Expansion.

I've lived in the Northwest a while back, and while I think Seattle could definitely support a team, my preferred city would be Portland. People in Portland are crazy about the NBA Blazers and tend to have cult following when it comes to their sports teams--the Rose Garden is considered one of the toughest buildings to play in because it's so damn loud. They're also big on the Winterhawks, which are a minor league team that you often hear people talking about. Just considering the size of the population and marketing, Seattle would probably be the safer bet, but man, Portland would be the perfect hockey city if people got into it.

I've been discussing and suggesting the 32-team option for a while now, and I agree that Portland is a much better option ideally. Seattle has shown less interest in hockey than Portland has. The one thing that would make Seattle a better option, though? Each team has exactly one major professional sports team. Portland has the Trail Blazers. Seattle has the Mariners. Seattle fans would be far more likely to start supporting a new team, one that didn't have to compete with any other teams in that market, than Portland would ahead of the Blazers. And that's not even considering scheduling complications with the Rose Garden if both teams were to use it.

Moving Phoenix to Quebec is as safe an option as leaving them be if corporate sponsorship, favorable arena deal, etc. can be found. Houston is a good market, despite being in the "non-hockey" south. It also provides a natural regional rival for Dallas. Dallas/Houston rivalries exist in other sports and it would likely be a good kick.

"I've never seen a warlock do that without his magic.""I once devoured a monk's soul. It tasted like chocolate."

I've been discussing and suggesting the 32-team option for a while now, and I agree that Portland is a much better option ideally. Seattle has shown less interest in hockey than Portland has. The one thing that would make Seattle a better option, though? Each team has exactly one major professional sports team. Portland has the Trail Blazers. Seattle has the Mariners. Seattle fans would be far more likely to start supporting a new team, one that didn't have to compete with any other teams in that market, than Portland would ahead of the Blazers. And that's not even considering scheduling complications with the Rose Garden if both teams were to use it.

Moving Phoenix to Quebec is as safe an option as leaving them be if corporate sponsorship, favorable arena deal, etc. can be found. Houston is a good market, despite being in the "non-hockey" south. It also provides a natural regional rival for Dallas. Dallas/Houston rivalries exist in other sports and it would likely be a good kick.

Am I just lost here or did you forget about the Seahawks? But then I don't follow baseball or basketball, so maybe you're talking about something else...